Anthony wrote: > Free licenses are generally written from the point of view that > modifications to works constitute derivative works, and not works of joint > authorship. Either is certainly possible. The key legal question is > whether the authors intended to collaborate on a single work > (Lennon/McCartney), or if one author created a work which was then modified > by another author (a movie created from a screenplay). > > It's by no means clear which better fits what happens on Wikipedia. I could > see things going either way, but considering the use of the GFDL I'd lean > toward believing that the *intent* of most authors was for each subsequent > edition to be a derivative work, and not a work of joint authorship. And > that's what matters, the intent of the authors (unfortunately, some authors > probably intended different from other authors). >
Purely on the question of what extra-wiki artistic analogue would be most apposite to the current state of affairs, might I propose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_of_the_Rising_Sun Wikipedia is very much jamming on each others contributions, with participants being variously incensed or exhilarated by others appropriating, re-using, re-invigorating old content. Personally I am glad that very few of my early contributions have remained in any form at all as live content. What supplanted them has been much better. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l